Ed Senate: Torture should not be our legacy

[Toontown]

I'm curious, is it hypocritical not to invade North Korea?

No. What you shouldn't do is cite the the "stability" the Kims wrought as an argument against invading North Korea, given the means by which the "stability" is achieved, particularly in light of the fact that it is a deeply questionable use of the word "stability" in the first place.

A hypocrisy made even more glaring if you then go on and on for decades about a few instances of waterboarding, intended to gain information to save lives.

 

[RandFan]

No. What you shouldn't do is cite the the "stability" the Kims wrought as an argument against invading North Korea, given the means by which the "stability" is achieved, particularly in light of the fact that it is a deeply questionable use of the word "stability" in the first place.

A hypocrisy made even more glaring if you then go on and on for decades about a few instances of waterboarding, intended to gain information to save lives.

I'm really confused, we cannot use "stability" as part of a comprehensive reason for not invading? Since when are decisions made in such a vacuum?

You are honestly saying that we cannot even consider the question of the stability of a nation if its dictator is torturing his people?

 

[Crossbow]

No. What you shouldn't do is cite the the "stability" the Kims wrought as an argument against invading North Korea, given the means by which the "stability" is achieved, particularly in light of the fact that it is a deeply questionable use of the word "stability" in the first place.

A hypocrisy made even more glaring if you then go on and on for decades about a few instances of waterboarding, intended to gain information to save lives.

You keep using that word "stability", I do not think that it means what you think that it means.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Actually I implied that the waterboarding has served as a convenient springboard for innumerable instances of posturing and preening aimed at establishing an image of moral superiority.

So did the Holocaust. What's your point?

 

[RandFan]

N...particularly in light of the fact that it is a deeply questionable use of the word "stability" in the first place.

Wait, what? The Iraq invasion didn't result in a destabilized region? Isis isn't slaughtering people in Iraq and Syria wholesale?

 

[Toontown]

The problem with most people and utilitarian ethics is they don't consider the big picture. They just want to find a way to justify their immorality. I need money therefore robbing a bank is moral from a utilitarian perspective. No.

Robbing a bank because you need money is hardly utilitarian for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that you are likely to get caught and sent to prison, ignoring any consideration of the greater good.

It's easy to keep utilitarians from robbing banks. Just maintain a rule of law.

The law is itself utilitarian, BTW. Bank robbing isn't legally punishable because it is morally wrong. It is punishable because it strikes at the heart of civilization, which the law is intended to protect.

 

[Toontown]

Wait, what? The Iraq invasion didn't result in a destabilized region? Isis isn't slaughtering people in Iraq and Syria wholesale?

No. The region was already unstable. As stated pointedly in multiple UN resolutions.

Saddam's wars destabilized the world and killed many more people than Isis ever will.

The UN, on multiple occasions, authorized all member nations to employ all necessary means to bring about stability in the region. These resolutions were aimed directly at Iraq.

 

[RandFan]

Robbing a bank because you need money is hardly utilitarian for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that you are likely to get caught and sent to prison, ignoring any consideration of the greater good.

Get rid of the laws then. If the law is a justification unto itself then we rightly should get rid of it. If an act is only deemed moral or immoral based on whether or not there is a law then you have a very irrational system of ethics.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No. The region was already unstable.

Saddam's wars destabilized the world and killed many more people than Isis ever will.

...the world? I think Germany might actually scoff at that.

 

[RandFan]

No. The region was already unstable.

Can you demonstrate this?

Saddam's wars destabilized the world and killed many more people than Isis ever will.

You know this how?

 

[Toontown]

Get rid of the laws then. If the law is a justification unto itself then we rightly should get rid of it. If an act is only deemed moral or immoral based on whether or not there is a law then you have a very irrational system of ethics.

That is your opinion, which, if implemented, would quickly lead to your untimely demise.

What could possibly be more rational than maintaining a civilization in which people can agree or disagree on morals?

 

[Toontown]

Can you demonstrate this?

You know this how?

Do UN resolutions carry any weight in this political hellhole?

The UN was of the opinion that Saddam's regime had destabilized the region beyond it's usual state.

When the death toll attributable to Isis tops 3 million, I'll be proved wrong superficially. But not really, because the continuation of the Ba'ath regime in Iraq would also have had upleasant, though admittedly unquantifiable results.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No. The region was already unstable.

Relative to what we have today, it was very stable. Not the region is very unstable because of the invasion of Iraq. The merits of whether or not to torture people have nothing to do with Iraq, btw. It's nice of you to take the thread off topic.

 

[RandFan]

That is your opinion, which, if implemented, would quickly lead to your untimely demise.

You completely missed the point. The law must be moral first. An unjust law is still unjust even if it is a law. THAT'S the point.

What could possibly be more rational than maintaining a civilization in which people can agree or disagree on morals?

Please note the word you chose "morals". Not laws. A Freudian admission that what is important are morals/ethics and not the laws. The laws are only a framework.

 

[pharphis]

This thread got really weird

 

[Toontown]

Relative to what we have today, it was very stable. Not the region is very unstable because of the invasion of Iraq. The merits of whether or not to torture people have nothing to do with Iraq, btw. It's nice of you to take the thread off topic.

Clearly the telescope through which you are viewing the past has a rose colored lens. But apparently the rose color doesn't kick in until before the overthrow of Saddam.

The thread went off topic on the first page.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This thread got really weird

It's almost as if the reasoned discussion went to Toontown.

 

[Toontown]

It's almost as if the reasoned discussion went to Toontown.

Sez the guy who habitually re-writes posts ("Are you saying...(re-write)), and then uses the re-write to attack the messenger.

 

[Toontown]

I'm really confused, we cannot use "stability" as part of a comprehensive reason for not invading? Since when are decisions made in such a vacuum?

I would consider such an argument unusually vacuous when the UN has pointedly cited the methods used to attain the deeply questonable "stability" as among the primary reasons why the object has been declared a Chapter VII rogue and has authorized "all necessary means" to be employed against the rogue to "return" stability to the region.

You are honestly saying that we cannot even consider the question of the stability of a nation if its dictator is torturing his people?

No. I am saying it is hypocritical to cite the deeply questionable and UN-denied "stability" of the regime as a reason why it should not be overthrown, and then to go on for decades bemoaning a few instances of waterboarding intended to save lives. Often accompanied by vociferous demands that Bush and Cheney be dragged before the Hague to stand trial for "war crimes".

 

[RandFan]

I would consider such an argument unusually vacuous when the UN has pointedly cited the methods used to attain the deeply questonable "stability" as among the primary reasons why the object has been declared a Chapter VII rogue and has authorized "all necessary means" to "return" stability to the region.

Odd that the UN would be against the invasion.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

No. I am saying it is hypocritical to cite the deeply questionable and UN-denied "stability" of the regime as a reason why it shouldn't be overthrown, and then to go on for decades bemoaning a few instances of waterboarding intended to save lives.

It's not at all hypocritical and your continued reference to the UN belies the fact that the UN did not think the invasion A.) Necessary B.) Would make things better C.) Legal.

You want to put everything into neat and tidy boxes of either "stable" or "not stable". Did Saddam threaten the stability of the region? Yes. Did the UN think the instability so severe it demanded an invasion? No.